2012 - Throw away/Go for it?

[Guest]

It makes me laugh that so many of the people who would rather wait for Votto to be a FA seemingly think he's a lot younger than he actually is. If the Cubs sign him when he'd be a FA next he'd be 30.

 

To be fair to those that feel that way, and I'm not of that mindset, but potentially, the team would be in better shape to take advantage of the earlier years of that contract.

 

Again, though, I'm not of that mindset, and 33 year old Pujols is much better than 30 year old Votto anyway.

[SouthSideRyan]

It makes me laugh that so many of the people who would rather wait for Votto to be a FA seemingly think he's a lot younger than he actually is. If the Cubs sign him when he'd be a FA next he'd be 30.

 

To be fair to those that feel that way, and I'm not of that mindset, but potentially, the team would be in better shape to take advantage of the earlier years of that contract.

 

 

Guessing he's not going to become younger than Fielder over the next 2 years.

[Guest]

It makes me laugh that so many of the people who would rather wait for Votto to be a FA seemingly think he's a lot younger than he actually is. If the Cubs sign him when he'd be a FA next he'd be 30.

 

To be fair to those that feel that way, and I'm not of that mindset, but potentially, the team would be in better shape to take advantage of the earlier years of that contract.

 

 

Guessing he's not going to become younger than Fielder over the next 2 years.

 

 

Nope. But my mind is dead set on Pujols at this point. Forgive me.

 

 

EDIT - And I'm still not sure how I feel about how Fielder is going to age.

[SouthSideRyan]

It makes me laugh that so many of the people who would rather wait for Votto to be a FA seemingly think he's a lot younger than he actually is. If the Cubs sign him when he'd be a FA next he'd be 30.

 

To be fair to those that feel that way, and I'm not of that mindset, but potentially, the team would be in better shape to take advantage of the earlier years of that contract.

 

 

Guessing he's not going to become younger than Fielder over the next 2 years.

 

 

Nope. But my mind is dead set on Pujols at this point. Forgive me.

 

 

EDIT - And I'm still not sure how I feel about how Fielder is going to age.

 

If you assume the same contracts for Votto and Fielder(I wouldn't, I'd expect Votto to get a better deal if he hits FA due to being the only one out there.), then Fielder would have to decline more than 2 years (age-wise) than Votto will. I see no reason why to believe that.

[bukie]

Here's my argument for Fielder:

 

Everyone agrees that Fielder will most likely decline much sharper and earlier than the average superstar player. Pujols is a once-a-generation type hitter whose season hit a decline this year and was still about as good as Fielder. How early do we think Fielder will start to decline? Four years down the road? Five? Let's just assume for the sake of argument that Fielder has four years left in him before he starts to decline. Unless Pujols can be counted on to rebound and avoid injury, the best case scenario for Pujols is about as good as Fielder was this year, while it's reasonable to think Fielder can still improve over the next 2-3 years. So it's reasonable to expect more return out of Fielder during the years we'd expect either to be productive in their contracts.

[SchruteFarms]

You think they're going to spend something like $30-40+M of freed up Major League payroll on "improvements to the organization?" Explain.

 

I just don't think they will be major players in free agency and the explanation will be they are focused on an organizational overhaul. I have no idea how much it will cost them to reach their vision, but I can't imagine it will be cheap.

[davell]

If Theo wants a year to evaluate everything, before making any truly major moves, then so be it. Our farm system is going to take a major jump forward next year anyway, since we have tons of high upside guys in the lower levels to begin with. Then you add another year of very heavy spending to go with that and my honest guess is by the end of next season, we'll have a top 5 system. Which will then allow Theo to trade freely for the type players he sees as true needs for us by then. I want Fielder or Pujols as much as the next guy, but if Theo has an uneventful offseason in year 1, so be it. Let him get the whole inside of the organization revamped to what he wants.

[17 Seconds]

fielder/pujols this year, hamels and danks/greinke next year. that's my dream scenario as far as free agency in the next 2 offseasons go.

 

with just those 3 moves, the cubs would have an offensive core of fielder/castro/soto/jackson (i think) and a starting pitching core of hamels/danks/garza with only 1 season under theo's belt.

 

i mean, it wouldn't really be hard to build a really good team around that, at all.

[pccubfan]

How much evaluation needs to go into the fact that the Cubs have no 1B options close in the minors and there are two very good options available via free agency in a year that sees the Cubs having a truckload of money coming off the books? I could understand not wanting to go out and sign a bunch of mid to high level free agent talent without evaluating the organization, but 1B seems to be a no-brainer to me.

[Guest]

 

If you assume the same contracts for Votto and Fielder(I wouldn't, I'd expect Votto to get a better deal if he hits FA due to being the only one out there.), then Fielder would have to decline more than 2 years (age-wise) than Votto will. I see no reason why to believe that.

 

 

Fair enough.

[toonsterwu]

One thing sort of glossed over in the conversation on the big names is will they want to come? The general player tends to want that big contract AND to go to a good situation. Now, there are exceptions (I could see CJ Wilson chase the money, as this is his one chance at a big, big deal and security), but there's a reason why a team like the Orioles hasn't been able to convince many guys to come, despite throwing money at some players.

 

Would a Fielder or Pujols want to come to a situation that, at the start of the offseason, only has one good offensive player (Castro), and only one positional asset in the system that is expected (certainly, guys can surprise) to help in the next 2-3 years (we've seen FA's do their homework on a team's system, so I assume the agents will have prepped them on the dynamics)? Can Theo sell them on that? If not, is there a domino reaction of moves possible to enhance the team before these guys make their decision? It is generally expected that both guys situations will probably drag on for most of the off-season, so there is time to make some moves beforehand, but are there enough moves to enhance the outlook of the club enough to change the perception on the situation? A lot of the positive feelings on this board on building a core in/for the next 3-4 years is predicated on signing that one big FA this off-season, but do they want to come is a question that isn't often asked.

 

There are more than enough teams with money to spend this off-season that money alone might not be enough. Certainly, it is possible that money may be enough for one or two of them, or perhaps they have aversions to certain places, or that Theo sells them enough to convince them to come. There is enough anecdotal evidence that the high end free agents tend to try to find situations they perceive as good. Whether or not these specific guys fall under that, none of us can really say, but I'm just looking at the broad picture. If they do follow past trends by high end free agents, then the question becomes, is there enough moves that we can make early on to change the outlook?

Edited October 27, 2011 by toonsterwu

[Sammy Sofa]

How much evaluation needs to go into the fact that the Cubs have no 1B options close in the minors and there are two very good options available via free agency in a year that sees the Cubs having a truckload of money coming off the books? I could understand not wanting to go out and sign a bunch of mid to high level free agent talent without evaluating the organization, but 1B seems to be a no-brainer to me.

 

This post is so obviously right it hurts.

[Backtobanks]

One thing sort of glossed over in the conversation on the big names is will they want to come? The general player tends to want that big contract AND to go to a good situation. Now, there are exceptions (I could see CJ Wilson chase the money, as this is his one chance at a big, big deal and security), but there's a reason why a team like the Orioles hasn't been able to convince many guys to come, despite throwing money at some players.

 

Would a Fielder or Pujols want to come to a situation that, at the start of the offseason, only has one good offensive player (Castro), and only one positional asset in the system that is expected (certainly, guys can surprise) to help in the next 2-3 years (we've seen FA's do their homework on a team's system, so I assume the agents will have prepped them on the dynamics)? Can Theo sell them on that? If not, is there a domino reaction of moves possible to enhance the team before these guys make their decision? It is generally expected that both guys situations will probably drag on for most of the off-season, so there is time to make some moves beforehand, but are there enough moves to enhance the outlook of the club enough to change the perception on the situation? A lot of the positive feelings on this board on building a core in/for the next 3-4 years is predicated on signing that one big FA this off-season, but do they want to come is a question that isn't often asked.

 

There are more than enough teams with money to spend this off-season that money alone might not be enough. Certainly, it is possible that money may be enough for one or two of them, or perhaps they have aversions to certain places, or that Theo sells them enough to convince them to come. There is enough anecdotal evidence that the high end free agents tend to try to find situations they perceive as good. Whether or not these specific guys fall under that, none of us can really say, but I'm just looking at the broad picture. If they do follow past trends by high end free agents, then the question becomes, is there enough moves that we can make early on to change the outlook?

 

With the money the Cubs are ready to spend in the next year or two and the reputation of our front office, I can't see why anybody would not want to come here.

[toonsterwu]

One thing sort of glossed over in the conversation on the big names is will they want to come? The general player tends to want that big contract AND to go to a good situation. Now, there are exceptions (I could see CJ Wilson chase the money, as this is his one chance at a big, big deal and security), but there's a reason why a team like the Orioles hasn't been able to convince many guys to come, despite throwing money at some players.

 

Would a Fielder or Pujols want to come to a situation that, at the start of the offseason, only has one good offensive player (Castro), and only one positional asset in the system that is expected (certainly, guys can surprise) to help in the next 2-3 years (we've seen FA's do their homework on a team's system, so I assume the agents will have prepped them on the dynamics)? Can Theo sell them on that? If not, is there a domino reaction of moves possible to enhance the team before these guys make their decision? It is generally expected that both guys situations will probably drag on for most of the off-season, so there is time to make some moves beforehand, but are there enough moves to enhance the outlook of the club enough to change the perception on the situation? A lot of the positive feelings on this board on building a core in/for the next 3-4 years is predicated on signing that one big FA this off-season, but do they want to come is a question that isn't often asked.

 

There are more than enough teams with money to spend this off-season that money alone might not be enough. Certainly, it is possible that money may be enough for one or two of them, or perhaps they have aversions to certain places, or that Theo sells them enough to convince them to come. There is enough anecdotal evidence that the high end free agents tend to try to find situations they perceive as good. Whether or not these specific guys fall under that, none of us can really say, but I'm just looking at the broad picture. If they do follow past trends by high end free agents, then the question becomes, is there enough moves that we can make early on to change the outlook?

 

With the money the Cubs are ready to spend in the next year or two and the reputation of our front office, I can't see why anybody would not want to come here.

 

It isn't as simple as that, though. Again, I will acknowledge that we're dealing with individuals, so you never know how one feels. And with Boras, sometimes money is enough. That said, there's a lot of teams with money to spend this offseason. Not many guys want to be the first guy to head somewhere. Miggy Tejada tried in Baltimore ... but they never got that 2nd guy to come along.

 

It's possible it's enough, perhaps for a Fielder who has more years to look forward to and might be willing to wait. This isn't a great scenario to convince guys to come ... outside of the fact that the front office looks strong and that the Cubs might spend. That said, the Blue Jays might spend and their front office is viewed as one of the shrewdest in the game right now with an excellent minor league system. The Angels might spend. The Nationals might spend, and while Rizzo is more "old-school", he's viewed in a positive light, they have an excellent front office and an excellent system. There's a lot of teams with some flexibility with their payroll right now. At the end of the day, talent is the most important thing, and there is exactly 1 good offensive player on the roster entering the off-season, and I think it's a fair question to ask if that is enough to convince a guy to come this off-season, or if there are enough early moves to make to change the outlook.

[jersey cubs fan]

It isn't as simple as that, though.

 

It really is. The Cubs have contended in the not too distant past. The Cubs are clearly heading in the right direction, and they have money to spend. People will go to the money unless the situation is a disaster and the Cubs aren't a disaster.

[toonsterwu]

It isn't as simple as that, though.

 

It really is. The Cubs have contended in the not too distant past. The Cubs are clearly heading in the right direction, and they have money to spend. People will go to the money unless the situation is a disaster and the Cubs aren't a disaster.

 

Even if we assume all that to be true (and again, I think we are over-stating how we look relative to what others feel about us - as noted earlier in one of these threads, sure, I could see a combination of moves this off-season to make us a good squad, on paper, but viewing things externally, entering the off-season, the Cubs have 1 good starter, 1 good offensive player, 1 good asset to help positionally, and question marks as to whether or not there is legitimate rotation help on the horizon (and I'm still more bullish on McNutt than most, but there are legitimate questions there), along with a system that I really like, but legitimately, is fairly weak as so many of the top pieces are so far away)), it presumes that the Cubs money will somehow trump other organizations. It's possible - Chicago looks as nice a destination as there is out there. Some folks will shy away from Canada, and the Marlins aren't likely capable of making multiple big moves this off-season.

 

Anyhow, I guess I'm throwing cold water on all the excitement, so I'll stop.

[XZero771679666304]

It isn't as simple as that, though.

 

It really is. The Cubs have contended in the not too distant past. The Cubs are clearly heading in the right direction, and they have money to spend. People will go to the money unless the situation is a disaster and the Cubs aren't a disaster.

 

This an area where having Theo/Hoyer running the show will really pay off, imo. These guys are smart, have a proven track record, and are ambitious. This isn't a small/mid market rebuilding project, it is/could be sold as getting in on something big.

 

Unlike Hendry (even though his down-to-earth, workman-like attitude had a certain quaint appeal), guys like Epstein have have an energy and gravitas that really instills confidence that [expletive] is going to get done, and I'm sure that extends to players.

[Backtobanks]

It isn't as simple as that, though.

 

It really is. The Cubs have contended in the not too distant past. The Cubs are clearly heading in the right direction, and they have money to spend. People will go to the money unless the situation is a disaster and the Cubs aren't a disaster.

 

Even if we assume all that to be true (and again, I think we are over-stating how we look relative to what others feel about us - as noted earlier in one of these threads, sure, I could see a combination of moves this off-season to make us a good squad, on paper, but viewing things externally, entering the off-season, the Cubs have 1 good starter, 1 good offensive player, 1 good asset to help positionally, and question marks as to whether or not there is legitimate rotation help on the horizon (and I'm still more bullish on McNutt than most, but there are legitimate questions there), along with a system that I really like, but legitimately, is fairly weak as so many of the top pieces are so far away)), it presumes that the Cubs money will somehow trump other organizations. It's possible - Chicago looks as nice a destination as there is out there. Some folks will shy away from Canada, and the Marlins aren't likely capable of making multiple big moves this off-season.

 

Anyhow, I guess I'm throwing cold water on all the excitement, so I'll stop.

 

Seriously, all things considered, what other franchises look much better than the Cubs. Yankees, Red Sox, and maybe the Angels.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

One thing sort of glossed over in the conversation on the big names is will they want to come? The general player tends to want that big contract AND to go to a good situation. Now, there are exceptions (I could see CJ Wilson chase the money, as this is his one chance at a big, big deal and security), but there's a reason why a team like the Orioles hasn't been able to convince many guys to come, despite throwing money at some players.

 

Would a Fielder or Pujols want to come to a situation that, at the start of the offseason, only has one good offensive player (Castro), and only one positional asset in the system that is expected (certainly, guys can surprise) to help in the next 2-3 years (we've seen FA's do their homework on a team's system, so I assume the agents will have prepped them on the dynamics)? Can Theo sell them on that? If not, is there a domino reaction of moves possible to enhance the team before these guys make their decision? It is generally expected that both guys situations will probably drag on for most of the off-season, so there is time to make some moves beforehand, but are there enough moves to enhance the outlook of the club enough to change the perception on the situation? A lot of the positive feelings on this board on building a core in/for the next 3-4 years is predicated on signing that one big FA this off-season, but do they want to come is a question that isn't often asked.

 

There are more than enough teams with money to spend this off-season that money alone might not be enough. Certainly, it is possible that money may be enough for one or two of them, or perhaps they have aversions to certain places, or that Theo sells them enough to convince them to come. There is enough anecdotal evidence that the high end free agents tend to try to find situations they perceive as good. Whether or not these specific guys fall under that, none of us can really say, but I'm just looking at the broad picture. If they do follow past trends by high end free agents, then the question becomes, is there enough moves that we can make early on to change the outlook?

 

Tsss No, but he can buy them with money. :rimshot: Tssss

 

There's always teams with money shopping. There'll be plenty of competition next year with Kemp, Hamels, Greinke, and the rest of that bunch. There'll be plenty of competition in 2014 when Kershaw and Felix are potential FAs. There'll be lots and lots of competition for Upton.

 

Plus, the Cubs aren't as far away as it seems a good deal of people think. Even moreso than the money, the farm system is just massively underrated. They've given the team a potential superstar SS, a pretty much complete bullpen (though I still think going after fallen power arms like Broxton is a good idea), a starting C, a 4-5 starter in Wells, and there's pieces that could take 2B (3B?) and CF next year. The bought elite talent is meant to supplement that, because for the time being the farm system isn't on the verge of producing any obvious stars/elite talents. Plus, having that guy around takes some pressure off the younger players while at the same time representing a challenge from the organization.

 

Oh yeah, and the timing is unbelievably perfect right now. Money, new GM momentum, money, open 1B, two big money 1B, freed up money...it all fits.

[toonsterwu]

KKG - the question isn't whether or not Fielder or Pujols fits the Cubs, the question I bring up is whether or not the Cubs fit them, which none of us can answer but is something that is left out of the discussion in the excitement on adding them. If we're honest about how we assess the Cubs (and keep in mind, I tend to think one of them will probably end up with the Cubs, but I expect Theo and Co. to be very active early on to make the team more attractive), the team has 1 good offensive player right now, 1 above average offensive player, 1 minor league positional asset that is viewed as likely to provide key help in the next 3 years, a bunch of positional question marks, 1 good SP, 1 4/5 starter, and a solid pen. The system, a system I like, is a weak, bottom-third system relative to the fact that most of the prime talent is far away. I think it's a fair question to ask, prior to the off-season, if this is the type of club that a big time FA wants to go to. I think they need to be very active early on, to shore up some positions, to try and convince one of them (likely Fielder because I still think Pujols stays in St. Louis) to come.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

KKG - the question isn't whether or not Fielder or Pujols fits the Cubs, the question I bring up is whether or not the Cubs fit them, which none of us can answer but is something that is left out of the discussion in the excitement on adding them. If we're honest about how we assess the Cubs (and keep in mind, I tend to think one of them will probably end up with the Cubs, but I expect Theo and Co. to be very active early on to make the team more attractive), the team has 1 good offensive player right now, 1 above average offensive player, 1 minor league positional asset that is viewed as likely to provide key help in the next 3 years, a bunch of positional question marks, 1 good SP, 1 4/5 starter, and a solid pen. The system, a system I like, is a weak, bottom-third system relative to the fact that most of the prime talent is far away. I think it's a fair question to ask, prior to the off-season, if this is the type of club that a big time FA wants to go to. I think they need to be very active early on, to shore up some positions, to try and convince one of them (likely Fielder because I still think Pujols stays in St. Louis) to come.

 

Open 1B position + lots of money = Yes.

 

On the 1 minor league positional asset that is viewed as likely to provide key help in the next 3 years:

 

Jackson

Szczur - I think 2013/2014 seems reasonable.

LeMahieu - 2B? 3B? UTIL? Even UTL is a significant position in today's game, somewhat.

Flaherty - See LeMahieu.

Watkins - More interesting than given credit for, and lost in the shuffle.

Castillo/Clevenger - Backup catchers are important.

 

That's not even considering the possibility of someone like Javier Baez to fly through (that's if they got really lucky).

 

This is a Cubs team that has alot of young, Cubs produced complimentary or secondary pieces (and Castro). Time to compliment that talent by getting some high end stuff in here. The position is open, the wallet has some money in it, the talent is out there...the whole situation fits like a glove.

[davearm2]

KKG - the question isn't whether or not Fielder or Pujols fits the Cubs, the question I bring up is whether or not the Cubs fit them, which none of us can answer but is something that is left out of the discussion in the excitement on adding them. If we're honest about how we assess the Cubs (and keep in mind, I tend to think one of them will probably end up with the Cubs, but I expect Theo and Co. to be very active early on to make the team more attractive), the team has 1 good offensive player right now, 1 above average offensive player, 1 minor league positional asset that is viewed as likely to provide key help in the next 3 years, a bunch of positional question marks, 1 good SP, 1 4/5 starter, and a solid pen. The system, a system I like, is a weak, bottom-third system relative to the fact that most of the prime talent is far away. I think it's a fair question to ask, prior to the off-season, if this is the type of club that a big time FA wants to go to. I think they need to be very active early on, to shore up some positions, to try and convince one of them (likely Fielder because I still think Pujols stays in St. Louis) to come.

 

Open 1B position + lots of money = Yes.

 

On the 1 minor league positional asset that is viewed as likely to provide key help in the next 3 years:

 

Jackson

Szczur - I think 2013/2014 seems reasonable.

LeMahieu - 2B? 3B? UTIL? Even UTL is a significant position in today's game, somewhat.

Flaherty - See LeMahieu.

Watkins - More interesting than given credit for, and lost in the shuffle.

Castillo/Clevenger - Backup catchers are important.

 

That's not even considering the possibility of someone like Javier Baez to fly through (that's if they got really lucky).

 

This is a Cubs team that has alot of young, Cubs produced complimentary or secondary pieces (and Castro). Time to compliment that talent by getting some high end stuff in here. The position is open, the wallet has some money in it, the talent is out there...the whole situation fits like a glove.

Clearly what toonsterwu is asking is, do the high end guys want to come join team chock full of complementary and secondary pieces?

 

Or will they go where there are other high end guys?

 

If it's the latter, they won't pick the Cubs.

 

Let your mind drift for a second to a scene of high fives and spraying champagne in the home clubhouse at Wrigley field. What players do imagine in that picture? Castro, sure. Garza, yep. Brett Jackson, hopefully. Any others currently on the team or in the org?

[toonsterwu]

Ding. That's the point I'm getting at, and the original post was also asking what series of moves can be done to enhance the team before the 1st basemen are likely to make a decision. It doesn't mean a ton of moves this year, but assuming the high end talent wants to go to a positive situation (which could be wrong, as I noted, I tend to wonder if CJ Wilson chases after the money), then they will have to make some moves to enhance this club beforehand and sell one of the first basemen on the moves this year and the potential for moves next year. Maybe that involves resigning Aramis and bringing back Ryan (that would certainly be a selling point, another middle of the order bat and a solid veteran starter), and a trade.

 

Thing is, at some of the positions of concern for the Cubs, there are few FA targets that really seem to fit. Furthermore, the Cubs likely only have enough chips to swing one big deal this offseason (unless they offer a "numbers" package of high upside pieces), and that depends somewhat on what assets are given up in the Epstein and Hoyer/McLeod discussions. I keep on wanting to try to work ways to get Chase Headley here in my head, but it seems quite unrealistic that they will give up their best offensive player (as it currently stands, Rizzo could be better down the line), a guy who adjusted his swing for the park and gets on base, without a gigantic package. Even then, that might not be enough - Darnell might move to corner OF and Rincon is horrid at 3rd. Gyorko might be more a utility guy.

 

As for the other points above -

 

I think Szczur could be ready by 2013, but ready to be key help? 2014 seems more likely to me as when he could take a full-time job, but it probably won't be 2015 until he's a solid, key contributor. That is assuming he adjusts and develops. I like Brett, have defended him a ton and argued that he's a bit under-appreciated, but even I don't think he's going to be key help as soon as next year. You know I like Flaherty a lot more than LeMahieu, despite seeing positive signs when I saw DJ earlier this year, but both of them likely have to move to a corner role, and neither of them are locks to be regular players (still think Flaherty, if he settles in at 3rd, might be a .260-.270/.350/.450 type perhaps). Utility players are useful, but utility players can also be found with relative ease.

 

Watkins might be somewhat under-appreciated, but that's because he had such an uneven season. If he shows that his surge was legit, then he becomes arguably our top 2nd base prospect in the upper levels.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Clearly what toonsterwu is asking is, do the high end guys want to come join team chock full of complementary and secondary pieces?

 

Or will they go where there are other high end guys?

 

If it's the latter, they won't pick the Cubs.

 

Let your mind drift for a second to a scene of high fives and spraying champagne in the home clubhouse at Wrigley field. What players do imagine in that picture? Castro, sure. Garza, yep. Brett Jackson, hopefully. Any others currently on the team or in the org?

 

1 - I'm saying that they'll go with the franchise that commits to them over the amount of years they want for the amount of dollars they want, or in the vicinity of both.

 

2 - Pujols isn't going anywhere to play second fiddle. The Yankees aren't getting him to play Tex to LF. The Mets are even worse off than the Cubs right now. The Red Sox have Gonzalez. The Angels could compete, but I'm not too worried about them. The Blue Jays? Yea, OK. I also don't buy Fielder signing to be a DH right off the bat, so NY and Boston are out. There'll be competition for these guys, but given the Cubs' advantages (potential name brand, lots of money, one of the three actual cities in the country) I'm not too worried about coming up with a sales pitch.

 

3 - Not sure what the actual point of your last part is, but I'll name LeMahieu. There's others, but I'm a big LeMahieu fan.

[Guest]

KKG - the question isn't whether or not Fielder or Pujols fits the Cubs, the question I bring up is whether or not the Cubs fit them, which none of us can answer but is something that is left out of the discussion in the excitement on adding them. If we're honest about how we assess the Cubs (and keep in mind, I tend to think one of them will probably end up with the Cubs, but I expect Theo and Co. to be very active early on to make the team more attractive), the team has 1 good offensive player right now, 1 above average offensive player, 1 minor league positional asset that is viewed as likely to provide key help in the next 3 years, a bunch of positional question marks, 1 good SP, 1 4/5 starter, and a solid pen. The system, a system I like, is a weak, bottom-third system relative to the fact that most of the prime talent is far away. I think it's a fair question to ask, prior to the off-season, if this is the type of club that a big time FA wants to go to. I think they need to be very active early on, to shore up some positions, to try and convince one of them (likely Fielder because I still think Pujols stays in St. Louis) to come.

I think you're understating the talent on the roster. I know you're trying to take an unbiased, outsider perspective, but I'm not sure that's really how the team is perceived. I also think Aramis gets extended at least through his option year before the FA period starts.

 

That gives:

 

SS: Castro is a rising star

3B: One of the best hitting 3B in the game

C: Even in his down years he's above average for a C

CF: Almost the definition of an average hitter

LF: For all his flaws, he was still an above average hitter at the plate

 

There's a reason we were around average in run production despite pathetic production from RF and below average production from 2B and 1B. Upgrade 1B with one of the studs and the offense will be well above average. All you have to sell is that the rotation will get a significant upgrade and I think you can sell these guys on a plan.

 

Plus, they know they're signing for more than just 2012. Ricketts, Theo & Hoyer can obviously sell them on a long-term plan where the Cubs will likely have the highest NL payroll over the FA's tenure with the team, combined with the talent and vision on the front office to build around the star.

 

This is not like trying to convince someone to play in Baltimore.